Hillary Clinton, it is fair to say, is a “polarizing figure.” Her husband, President Bill Clinton, is not. Neither is the elder President (George H.W.) Bush, nor his son, Jeb.
But the younger President (George W.) Bush, Sarah Palin, and President Barack Obama most certainly are. In terms of her now-official 2016 Presidential bid, then, tens of millions of Americans are overjoyed at the prospect of President Hillary, whereas tens of millions more are utterly horrified by it.
For the latter group, please take note: if you want to beat Hillary Clinton, you’re not going to do it by linking her to President Obama. And if you’ve got ties to any GOP movers and shakers, please get this article to them – quickly.
You see, when it comes to winning elections, Republicans, just like Democrats, haven’t got a clue. They simply get lucky from time to time, by being blessed with an eminently electable candidate. Other times, they are in the enviable role of being the alternative: much like the Democrats of 2008, or the Republicans of 2014.
If either of those parties’ strategists try to take credit for those election year victories, that’s like 19th Century campaigns in agricultural America, when candidates and their camps would take credit for bountiful crops – when the real hero was … lots and lots of rain that year!
Therefore, if Republicans can accept the fact that there are in desperate need of advice about how to win, then hopefully they will take some – do not link Hillary to Obama. And here’s why:
Fox News-watching, talk radio-listening, churchgoing, non-marijuana-smoking, gunowning, suburban-dwelling voters with an opposite-gender spouse, children, and a dog, are already not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
They do not even need to hear her name linked to Obama’s – not even once. Sure, it might make them angrier than they already are, but that won’t make their vote count for more. They can only vote once.
But a Hillary-Obama link will only serve to alienate Obama supporters who plan to vote for Hillary’s opponent (whoever that may be), not for her, who are insulted by that conflation.
Yes, pro-Obama/anti-Hillary types do exist. I know several, personally. A link such as that would perpetuate the stereotype that every Republican simply hates every Democratic candidate, no matter what.
It would send a message of: “we don’t like Hillary, and we don’t like Obama, because they’re Democrats.” And that is not a winning message.
Also, please stop talking about Benghazi. Give it up – no one but the conservative media hosts and their loyal listeners care. The more damaging issue is Emailgate. That one is a no-brainer: Hillary was subpoenaed by Congress to turn over her email server, and what did she do instead? She erased it.
Hillary also said she was under enemy fire in Bosnia, when CBS News showed footage revealing nothing of the kind. “I misremembered,” she said – even though she (and husband Bill) repeated the story countless times. Forget Brian Williams, when it comes to self-aggrandizing lies, Hillary is in her own league.
And what about her campaign-launching video about “real people?” Could it had been any more obviously-scripted in terms of diversity composition?
I sat there watching it and thought to myself: “an Asian is coming up next, followed by a gay couple.” Bingo! Right on cue! I’m surprised she left out a paraplegic and a Muslim.
To clarify: of course her message – that America belongs to everyone, not just the well-connected white folks – is admirable. It is not her words that are revolting. It is the artificially-scripted compassion she injects conveying them.
It is even more nauseating than Bill Clinton biting his lower lip to feign concern as he says: “I feel your pain.” For more examples, see William Hurt in the film Broadcast News, in which he played an anchorman who applied water around his eyes to make it look as if he were crying while reporting on a story of date rape. Real tears over rape are human. Fabricated ones are subhuman.
This is the point, Republicans. If you really want to beat Hillary in 2016, focus not on what makes her similar to Obama – who in 2008 and 2012 received more votes than any Presidential candidate in American history, by the way – but what makes her different from him.
Whereas, like most politicians, he is guilty of contradicting himself from time to time, Hillary (just like Mitt Romney, Al Gore, and John Kerry), is the quintessential “phony politician.” And that is the number one reason why she should not be president.
Those who paint politics with broad Republican Red or Democratic Blue strokes already know whom they’re voting for: the candidate – whoever he/she is – whose name appears directly below “Republican” or “Democrat” in the voting booth.
But it is the vast middle, the undecided voters, not the predictable partisans, who decide presidential elections. And those undecideds are far too nuanced to link one candidate to another because of party. They are far more likely to be repulsed by pretentiousness and disingenuousness, which Hillary possesses, in droves.